You Know My Name

The true(?)story of Oklahoma lawman Bill Tilghman. Producer/star Elliott who is legendary for his characterizations of western lawmen and pioneers, falls flat on this project. Some one needs to explain to me why, WHY, when many of the original locations in the movie-Cromwell, Wowoka, and Chandler, Ok, are still much as the same as they were in the 20s-when this story takes place-did Elliott and crew feel it necessary to film in Canada?? Must be a NAFTA thing. And again, there is the attempt to make the west seem more like the present (large drug shipments parachuting into rural areas-reminiscent of the "Mena legend"!). .. my guess this is done to appeal to the Gen Xers. This is just another picture, made in the last three decades that gives proof to the adage "Western pictures have gone down-hill ever since Robert L. Lippert died!

Tilghman was the corrupt one in this story, not Wiley Lynn. Tilghman was extorting protection money from the casinos and bawdy houses in Cromwell. Lynn was the federal agent in charge of enforcing the prohibition of alcohol in the area. Tilghman had made public threats to kill him, but when he tried to as Lynn was raiding one of his client's businesses, Lynn was able to fire his weapon first and kill the corrupt marshal. He was tried for the killing and found not guilty, but the myth of the old "lawman" was stronger than the truth, and Lynn's reputation was destroyed and he resigned from his federal job. He became an alcoholic and eventually died in another shootout.

I'm disappointed that Sam Elliott would agree to make a movie like this, which is so obviously based on lies.

In 1924, legendary lawman turned silent film star Bill Tilghman (Sam Elliott) reluctantly agrees to clean up a grimy Oklahoma town controlled bootlegging gangsters and full of rowdy oil-rig workers. He ends up squaring off against coked-out, renegade G-Man Arliss Howard.

This production looks fantastic, with lots of attention to detail and great atmosphere. Unfortunately, there's too much talk and not enough action to go along with the vivid sets, costumes, and locations. This ends up being more of a character study than a western or gangster story.

Sam Elliott does a great job as Tilghman, who rode with the Earps and went up against the real-life Wild Bunch. If anything, the film does do an excellent job at portraying a man who has little left to offer but his pride and stories of past triumphs.

Any western that stars Sam Elliott is usually a good one. Few people have ever looked and sounded more like a cowboy than Sam. Also, most westerns feature beautiful landscapes and overall photography, and this film is no exception. Being made-for-TV, it could have been made on-the-cheap but it wasn't. I am not a fan of Ted Turner but his TNT westerns look beautiful, all of them.

Elliott plays a lower-key role than usual, being an appealing sort as a loving father and husband and a good-guy marshal. This western is a bit different in that the time period is the early 1900s with automobiles and such dotting the landscape.

There is not a lot of action in here and not an especially happy ending, either, but it's a good western that worth you while to check out.

Maybe it was the fact that it was a western set at the start of the modern time period, but something about this movie was lacking. Sam Elliot as Tiglman is excellent and Carolyn McCormick as his wife was a nice bit of casting. However, Arliss Howard as the corrupt federal agent was so over the top you would think you were supposed to be watching a present day drug film. Elliot should be acknowledged as a master of the western movie genre, if he hasn't been already. However, this movie didn't have enough of the "western" qualities for me. I'll sit back and watch Conagher again to see Elliot in top form with a great "western" storyline.