The Peacemaker

A former gunfighter who went to prison but then took up religion arrives in a western town as the new preacher. There he finds a feud between the ranchers and the farmers. The railroad agent is after the ranchers land and has his men causing all the trouble. The new preacher sets out to bring the two sides together and he says he will not need a gun.

According to Jan Merlin, who played the villain, shooting took only "seven or ten days." Although the film featured some successful character actors like Hugh Sanders in supporting roles, none of the performers qualified as marquee names; in fact, at this point in his career, star James Mitchell was known only as a dancer. Makelim tried to compensate for these problems by marketing the film to a religious audience —- the local clergymen were invited to the film's premiere in Wichita. The Peacemaker enjoyed only sporadic distribution and was not widely reviewed.

Successful or not, this is the film that launched director Ted Post's career, and he went on to make some better-known westerns ("Hang 'em High"), the Clint Eastwood masterpiece "Magnum Force" and at least one notable Chuck Norris film. If Post is to be celebrated, this film deserves another look.

A simple, yet wholesome western that depicts the struggles between small town cattle ranchers and farmers. A redeemed gunfighter turned Parson, enters the small town to face down the corruption and one very powerful railroad man who is behind it all. Constently being challenged by both sides, he even struggles against grabbing a weapon when hired thugs kill a friend. A young woman (Ann) enters the Parson's life helping him in his trials with some very hardheaded towns folk. The plot may move slowly for many, but worth the effort should one struggle with the pace. This is a film with a simple yet powerful story line. Truly a family movie for all ages and for those who believe.

Well, this first movie directed by Ted Post, a future very prolific film maker for TV industry mostly, this western is not bad at all, but unfortunately too smooth for my taste. I call this an oater. Good acting, directing, photography. But I admit to prefer tougher stories, more brutal, more action packed. This remains a western, it's not RG Springsteen's COME NEXT SPRING nor Jacques Tourneur's STARS IN MY CROWN. Good character depiction, I repeat, this movie can easily find its audiences but as the totle says, this is certainly not a posse scheme with gunfights.... A psychological western, and that's not so usual. Now that's up to you.

Watching this movie it quickly became apparent that it was made to present Christianity in a popular format--and nothing was more popular in 1956 than the western. Back when I was a kid (which includes all of the 1950s) churches and, now and then, schools would present such movies. I would not be surprised if this church audience was a key market for this movie as its lack of stars and slow pace would have crippled it in movie theaters.

That said, I kept watching it and was surprised at the professionalism of the actors and the production. Usually such productions have a few professionals then fill out the cast with near amateurs who would cause all but a parent to blush. In this production there were no real howlers.

Mitchell gives a good performance in the lead role, although he has a face and appearance more suitable for a bad guy. That old pro Robert Armstrong gives his usual solid performance as a sheriff of questionable loyalties. The same can be said of Taylor Holmes, who plays the town drunk who becomes the new preacher's first friend.

Is this worth searching out? No. But if, like me tonight, you can't get to sleep and you find The Peacemaker on cable, you could do worse. I started watching it to catch Robert Armstrong and then continued watching to see how deeply it might slip into Bible thumping. So what if it did thump the Bible now and then? What the hell, I've stayed up later to watch worse movies than this one.