L'ora delle pistole

Hour of the Gun is a superb western with a top-notch cast and a most memorable musical score. So why was it a box-office flop? Unfortunately it came along at a time when westerns were on their way out, no longer fashionable. The hour of the "ridiculous gun" had arrived. Westerns were soon replaced with parodies of westerns such as Support Your Local Sheriff, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, etc. Fun movies to be sure, but the cynicism which had begun to take hold in America in 1967 and made them hits was a death knell for serious films about the old west. For me, Hour of the Gun has stood the test of time. It's as absorbing now as when I first saw it. If it were re-released today, would it succeed at the box office? Probably not. Although the cynicism of 1967 is gone, it has been replaced by male-bashing. This film is strictly for guys. There's no female lead character or even a minor one. No wonder Hour of the Gun is still consigned to the rotten tomatoes bin. Although it's a darn good movie, its "hour" may never come, at least not in our lifetime.

Although inaccurate it far outweighs "Doc" made 4 years later. Garner does his best in portraying Earp as grim and unemotional, yet cool and unflinching. This was Earp's persona. Robards, although older than the real Holliday was at the time, also does well. I'm not so sure if the real Holliday was concerned with Earp losing his character. He was a loyal friend who was in it for a pound.

Robert Ryan is a superior actor, but Clanton wasn't a land baron. Clanton was a rustler/rancher, loud-mouth/coward that provoked the gunfight at the O.K.corral and lost the case for the prosecution by being a not-too-bright liar. I don't know if Ryan could be cast correctly to portray the real Ike Clanton.But he does well regardless. Earp also didn't really kill Ike.

This movie does explore the vigilante ride of Wyatt and Doc after the wounding of Virgil and the killing of Morgan Earp. Pete Spence was never a sheriff, and Sherm McMasters was a cowboy that informed for Wyatt. The movie is a superior western and as close to accurate as Hollywood came until "Tombstone" and "Wyatt Earp".

The mood is somewhat interesting but it wasn't a moral struggle for Wyatt and Doc in real life. They were doing what they felt was right, vengeance. Earp thought in very black and white terms, killing his brothers killers was the right thing to do in his mind. It didn't matter if it was against the law he often swore to protect as a peace officer in those western boom towns. He was always upright and correct in his profession as a lawman, but in matters of family he was not on the job and no longer wearing a badge. his duty to law enforcement no longer applied.

This is the quasi-sequel to Sturges' "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" and it improves on that film in every way. The Panavision widescreen gives it a more epic scope than "O.K.", and in the ten years between the two films Sturges has also much improved his mise-en-scene. Whereas "O.K." was often unassuming at best and plain dull at worst in its framing (additionally hindered by some obvious studio shots presenting the outdoors), Sturges gets the most out of his shots here. The sequence in which Virgil Earp is gunned down in a dark street is one example. Thankfully enough the dreadful "singing cowboy" songs of "O.K." are nowhere to be heard, instead we have one of Jerry Goldsmith's best scores...and that says something. Acting is also a touch better than in the predecessor. While the Lancaster-Douglas team of "O.K." was indeed that - o.k. - it was bogged down by the repetitious dialogue they were given. Garner and Robards, both somewhat underestimated actors, give fine performances here. And while Robert Ryan as the villainous Ike Clanton is not given much to work with, he makes a reasonable impact as the scheming cattle baron and thief. Finally, and most importantly, the timing of the film is much better than "O.K." which was simply a chore to go through and a bore when one got there. "Hour of the Gun" alternates politics (both sides of the conflict getting the law on their sides, in itself a truthful and interesting account of law and order in the Wild West) and action scenes with Wyatt and comrades pursuing the attackers of his brothers. The depiction of Earp's vigilantism is relatively realistic though the claim of the film to "tell it as it happened" is of course somewhat over-exaggerated, especially concerning the fate of Ike Clanton.

As far as westerns from the end of the golden age of that genre go, "Hour of the Gun" does not rank among the very best, but is a minor treasure nonetheless, a very worthwhile film that tells the events after the famous showdown at the O.K. Corral, and does a very good job of doing so.

For Sturges, the West was a man's world, and his cool, hard, detached style, emphasizing action, excitement and the rugged environment of the frontier, endorsed the point…

Sturges believed there were three essentials to every Western: 1. Isolation – a man standing alone with no hope of help from outside (e.g. Spencer Tracy's predicament in "Bad Day at Black Rock when the telegraph lines are cut). 2. A man, or group of men compulsively take law and justice, rightly or wrongly, into their own hands (e.g. "The Magnificent Seven"). 3. The issues are resolved by violence in the form of gunplay (e.g. "Gunfight at the OK Corral," "Hour of the Gun"). He followed this up by saying: 'A Western is a controlled, disciplined, formal kind of entertainment. There's good and bad; clearly defined issues; there's chase; there's a gunfight.'

"Hour of the Gun" covers the period just after the famous gun battle… The film is well done but there are some downfalls: It shows only one face of Wyatt— his "official" law abiding side, with no women in his life… And also no Johnny Ringo—the main bad guy and rival of Doc Holliday…

There are solid performances all around, beginning with James Garner who plays a hero with a badge, and is powerful in his intensity… Wyatt's vengeance for the murder of his brother show the primal potency of violence…

Robards plays John Holliday—an ordinary man dying of tuberculosis who becomes one of Wyatt's most loyal allies with an insatiable greed for drinking, gambling and fighting… Robards is quite good in his character, and does deliver a couple of colorful lines to Earp… The relationship and chemistry between the two men is unique… It's difficult to outline, but it's like these two were old souls who would go through hell with/for each other and never need to wonder or to argue it…

Ryan, as a Westerner, has played straight as well as crooked – his hunted killer in "The Naked Spur" and his ageing lawman (losing his vision at crucial moments) in "The Proud Ones" being equally memorable… In more recent roles he has been basically sympathetic – as the horse-handler in "The Professionals," as William Holden's weary, reluctant pursuer in "The Wild Bunch," as the pacifist sheriff in "Lawman" – the exception being "Hour of the Gun," in which once again he was the outlaw on the run, this time with a relentless Wyatt Earp in pursuit… Ryan has perhaps achieved more as an actor in other genres, but the Western would have been the poorer without him

After the shoot out at the OK Corral, Ike Clanton brides officials to start legal proceedings against Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday for the murder of his brother. The judge weighs up the evidence and spots some contradictions in key parts of the prosecution case and thus acquits Earp and Holliday and rules the shoot out was part of them fulfilling their duties as lawmen. Unsatisfied with this ruling, Clanton gets a couple of his men to kill Wyatt's brothers setting the law man on a quest to bring Clanton in – but is he seeking justice or revenge? I had never heard of this film until recently but I decided to give it a try when I read it was a sequel to OK Corral. In essence it is a rather old-fashioned western but it has a nice mean air to it that I found complimented the material. The plot is simple though and it never gets to grips with the darker side of the legends of Wyatt and Doc; perhaps because it was Sturges that directed but I would lie to see the film as it would have been made when The Wild Bunch turned the western genre on its head. Because here the focus is the story where really it needed to be on Wyatt the man as he loses touch with the lawman and starts to resemble much more of a driven revenge figure. It is a shame that the film doesn't go deeper into this but as it is it is still an enjoyable western that does what it does well enough for genre fans.

The cast are good despite not having anyone carried over from the first film. Garner does make for a mean Wyatt and even if the material doesn't go deep, Garner's eyes show that he understands what he is doing. Robards is enjoyable as Holliday and has one of the film's best dialogue scenes when he confronts the man he once looked up to. Ryan isn't as key as I had hoped and the narrative keeps him to the side for the majority of the film. The support cast are mainly good enough for the genre but it is Garner and Robards who dominate the whole thing.

Overall this is a solid and enjoyable period western. The dark revenge and hatred within Wyatt is hinted at but it is only really Garner who seems to want to really bring it out of his character as the film only toys with it while staying in firmly old-fashioned territory. Could have been a lot more interesting then but still manages to be an enjoyable western for fans of the genre as it was before changing in the late sixties.