Partita d'azzardo

Jimmy Stewart, in the title role, is a pleasure to watch and listen to. The economy he brings to the role is surpassed only by his drollness. Marlene Dietrich is magical and when she and Stewart get together, it may not be exactly sparks but there sure is some heat.

This is one of the finer westerns of the period. It holds up very well into the 90s. The supporting characters are well cast and bring a nice feel of variety to the tiny town of Bottlenck.

This movie is basically a good movie made very good by James Stewart. Most impressive is that it was made in 1939. The movie has a cast of characters that are very believable in their roles. The humor is ahead of its time. I am not quite sure why I loved this movie so much, but if you want to know why everyone seems to love Stewart's films, just watch this one! Western movie buffs must-see this movie ]

There are several reasons why Destry Rides Again appeals to me. While I am not the biggest fan of westerns I do think there are some jewels within the genre, and I love comedy when it's done right. Destry Rides Again merges these two genres brilliantly. George Marshall does a fine job directing, I can understand why those would find his directing style flat but he allows the stars to have fun and has a nice understated approach to how he directs the film. This approach works.

The film still looks great. The cinematography and editing are crisp, the sets don't look as though they are made on the cheap and the costumes are beautiful to watch, and the music is rousing and compliments the mood wonderfully. The story is not as good as some of the other components but it is a fun, well-paced and relevant one. And there is a fine cast. Marlene Dietrich, cast against type here looks as though she is having a ball and has some of the film's best scenes and lines, and the wonderful James Stewart in his first western lead shows a believable chemistry(like fireworks I'd say!) and gives a very charming performance. Brian Donlevy is deliciously snide and knows how to sneer and scowl, and Mischa Auer, Charles Winninger and Allen Jenkins are marvellous.

Three things especially elevate Destry Rides Again to an even higher level though. One is the rollicking humour, the dialogue in particular is cracking and delivered with a wicked sense of timing by the whole cast. Secondly, Marlene Dietrich performing the simply fabulous See What the Boys in the Back Room Will have, that scene alone is a timeless classic. And finally, and possibly even the best of all, is the cat-fight between Dietrich and Una Merkel, which as far as I'm concerned has never been bettered.

Overall, a classic western-comedy and not to be missed. I think it could have been a tad longer, but with everything else so good I don't mind so much. 9.5/10 Bethany Cox

Destry Rides Again (1939)

A brilliantly made spoof of the early American Western. This came out at a strange time for this kind of reflective comedy, because in fact the Western was just this year having a revival with three serious Westerns including John Ford's legendary Stagecoach. But the fixtures of this kind of movie were well in place--the barroom brawl, the bad men and their guns, the good sheriff coming to the rescue, the sweet untainted woman and the quasi-whorehouse type woman, and of course the final shootout. It's all here. And it's a wild ride done with subtlety, a difficult combination to pull off.

It's fun to see this movie and then compare to the later generation of take-offs and spoofs that take themselves much more seriously--the spaghetti Westerns of the 1960s. These, too, used all the clichés of the Western to make an amusing reference to those types. The reason why those movies worked so well, and why Destry does, too, is that these are attractive archetypes. We see ourselves in these people, somehow, and yet not too closely. We identify with them (especially Jimmy Stewart the sheriff and Marlene Dietrich the bad woman with a good heart who can sing, too) and yet know they are all artifice, just as in a play. The illusion of reality is damped down by the excess and the fun, and the obvious exaggerations.

As for director George Marshall, he's a hardened Hollywood veteran most famous, perhaps, for a long string of golf movies (yes golf, the sport). But his expertise, and his willingness to go for broke with scenes involving dozens or even hundreds of people, and to use the camera vigorously, and to realize he had two of the greatest actors he could ask for (Stewart toward the beginning of his career, and Dietrich still a great star though cast against her normal romanticized type from the early 1930s) is phenomenal. You'll shake your head and laugh at the same time.

In fact, it is the chemistry of the two stars that gives the movie surprising depth. It's not just a farce. It talks about pacifism just as World War II is brewing. And it suggests something about true love as much as carnal attraction. All while the world is exploding around the two leads, almost literally, as you'll see. And whatever might happen on screen by the end, it's fun to know that the two had a real affair offscreen, with some hush hush scandal to follow years later.

Watch this and laugh and maybe even cry a little. Great stuff.

. . . this is what they mean.

I'm intrigued by the voting on this movie as I can't imagine any scale on which it wouldn't get top marks. Where exactly does it drop the ball? Cast - inspired; performances - stellar; script - faultless; direction - millimetre perfect; score - find me one better, ("See what the boys in the back room will have" has gone into the language).

Is it because it's not an arthouse movie? Or because of the dangerous idea that restraint, cool and smarts are more effective weapons than playground bully tactics?

As far as I am concerned, if you want to know how to put a movie together, you can start here. 10/10 is the only possible mark for a masterpiece.