L'ora della furia

I got tired of reading reviews containing either outright misinformation (suggesting the writer saw some other movie) or downright absurdity. From the top notch performances to the stirring Alfred Newman score to the brilliant Vincent McEveety direction to the detailed Calvin Clements script, this a western I can recommend wholeheartedly. This movie finally deserves its due, and a decent DVD release. Rather than falling into the spaghetti western mold popular at the time, this film looks and feels very American, a direct heir to the great Anthony Mann westerns of the 50s.

Jimmy Stewart, mystifyingly maligned in other reviews, gives a sincere moving performance. I wonder if the criticism comes at his farmer character's reluctance towards violence--disappointing no doubt to fans of "cartoon" westerns. The gritty realism extends to the easy, natural relationship among the gang played by Henry Fonda, Gary Lockwood, James Best, Jack Elam, and Morgan Woodward. This gang is the catalyst and their details, ticks and volatile unpredictability are portrayed with beautifully understated precision. And J. Robert Porter as the town simpleton will break your heart.

There's so much fine work by the cast, particularly Stewart, Fonda, Lockwood (who played another superb villain in the electrifying two-part "Gunsmoke" episode, "The Raid"), Best, Elam, Brooke Bundy, Jacqueline Scott, Louise Latham, Barbara Luna and Ed Begley. A dark, gritty, suspenseful western to be sure, but with a warm heart and soul at its center. Seek it out.

The late sixties, for me, were the last years of traditionnel Hollywood western, typical of the Anthony Mann type of films of the fifties. Western of the seventies will have all that Leone type of feeling, or the violent aura of The Wild Bunch (Of course, there's few exceptions, like The Shootist). Nothing new under the sun here : a little bit of High Noon here, a little bit of the Mann-type of western there. But the story, if not original, is strong and the acting is very fine. I don't think Firecreek was popular then, or got a reputation, perhaps because people were tired of that kind of films. But James Stewart is superb. As always.

Firecreek is one of the most underrated great westerns ever because it doesn't have a lot of flash. It's just gritty and tense. I think this is the best small-town-sheriff-gets-pushed-too-far western. Fonda proves he is better when he's bad (pre-Once Upon a Time in the West) and Jack Elam is always a plus. The real surprise is Gary Lockwood (2001) in a powerhouse performance of pure evil. Jimmy Stewart of course is the sheriff and I didn't really like him as an actor until I saw this film. The final shootout is great, pitchfork and all. Firecreek isn't for all tastes, but I recommend it, especially for noir-type fans.

First off, anyone calling this typical, cliché, or done-before wasn't really paying attention. I can't recall any other Western I have ever seen that is as personally intense. I believe if this was a Japanese movie involving samurai, the same reviewers saying as much would have been praising it and it would be hailed as an example of originality and how great many unappreciated Japanese films are.

To really get an idea of what you're going to watch when you watch this film, realize that it is closer to 12 Angry Men and The Crucible than it is to your typical shoot-em-up Western.

I believe that this is an excellent movie for student-actors to watch and study. Stewart and Fonda both deliver powerful, compelling performances. There roles are near perfect classic examples of protagonist and antagonist. Yet, while their respective roles as 'good guy' and 'bad guy' are familiar this is an ultra-intense dive into who their characters are, what has brought them to this point, and the gritty depths to which each is willing to plunge into themselves to win the day. Both characters are inextricably tied to their respective companions with both parallels and extreme contrasts as to why they are so heavily influenced by those around them. Yet each has a core integrity that *seems* unshakable despite constant challenges pushed upon them by the profound flaws that define their respective groups.

If you allow yourself to become immersed you'll discover an inglorious, unflattering, gritty hero versus villain tale unlike the vast majority of movies that exist in any genre, let alone Westerns. A dry, dusty, brutal struggle for survival in an isolated Western scenario. It gives you little hope for positive resolution throughout. You can feel the tension and you'll cringe at what seems inevitable tragedy. Unique, gritty, and intense, I claim without hesitation that this is one of the best Westerns of all time.

Or may I say his masterpiece if you compare with what he will do later for Disney industry. This is a pretty good western though showing a scheme already told before ten million times; a sheriff alone against a bunch of outlaws. But Hank Fonda, supposed to be the leader of the "bad men" has very intersting character, ambivalent and touching in some points. It could be compared with the Richard Boone's character in THE TALL T, the leader of four outlaws, but a character for whom the audience can feel some kind of empathy. Not the ugliest guy in the world. A western that deserves to be seen over and over. Not so typical of the late sixties but rather the fifties. It could have been made ten years earlier.