A Última Diligência

You see Bing, Red, Ann, and so forth, and you might skip this, but if you ignore the "fading star" thing and just enjoy it as a little play put on by some true pros, you'll enjoy this. It has one of the best chase scenes ever, with Indians and Helicopter shots of the racing horses and stage, it has a great performance by Bob Cummings and Kennan Wynn, and I actually felt the hair coming up on the back of my neck during the storm on the cliff, even though I knew it was just a process shot against a painting. It's not Shakespeare, but hey, it's a fun 1960's good ole American film just as TV production values and over lit sound stages were taking over film making and as the last reviewer said, just before the Anti Hero revolution.

The original version of this story (made in that year of years, 1939) stands as one of the all time great westerns for many people. Therefore, a remake can only hope to come close to the original's heights and, in this case, it doesn't quite make it. The fairly straightforward story of nine people en route to Cheyenne, Wyoming (in the title mode of transportation) during an Indian uprising isn't exactly monumentally meaningful or complex. It would seem hard to mess it up too badly and this version is OK. It just isn't able to shine as brightly as its predecessor. Boozy doctor Crosby and baby-voiced, skyscraper-haired saloon girl Ann-Margret are driven out of town (after two men, literally, kill themselves trying to dance with her!) They join slick gambler Connors, liquor salesman Buttons, sticky-fingered banker Cummings and pregnant soldier's wife Powers on the coach. Fretful Pickens and determined Marshall Heflin ride on top, eventually picking up Cord along the way. On the plus side, there is some gorgeous scenery, lots of great music, the legendary Norman Rockwell portraits of the cast at the end and good performances from Crosby, Buttons and Pickens. Detriments would have to include the lackluster work of Connors (walking through and never fully realizing his part), Powers (mostly blank and uninteresting) and Cord (alternately wooden and over-dramatic.) Cord (what? was Michael Parks busy?), in particular, is a let down in that he lacks the physical presence to really stand out as the hero of the story. Most of the cast can hardly get a close-up in since so many are devoted to Ann-Margret (who, at 25, was already getting the gauzy, fuzzy treatment in them.) She does an adequate job throughout, though she really only sparkles in her catty scene with Powers when the coach is delayed by a fallen tree. There are certainly worse westerns out there, but this can't begin to approach greatness. Too many of the actors are just marking time and the direction isn't particularly creative. Also, what was revolutionary and trend-setting in 1939 was already becoming cliché by 1966, so the whole thing comes off as a little reheated.

I have also seen the 1939 version of "Stagecoach" starring John Wayne and enjoyed it as well. I have also seen a couple of other versions of "Stagecoach". I don't find it difficult to enjoy watching different versions of the same movie or story. Sometimes they are not quite as "good" as earlier or later versions, but they are still fun to watch. Each version of a story has it's own unique qualities and features. Two features that I really, really enjoyed from the 1966 version of "Stagecoach" was it's theme song, sung by Wayne Newton, and the other was the beautiful paintings that Norman Rockwell did of the cast members that were shown at the end of the film. They were magnificent (I would really like to know what was done with them). I remember when "Battlestar Galactica" aired and a lot of people were downing it as not being as good as "Star Wars" and "Star Trek". Needless to say, that upset me a great deal. I like all three of them. Each has their own unique qualities. I just wish people could enjoy each film or show as it comes along and not compare it to death with others.

Stagecoach is a remake of the 1939 Jon Wayne film. It has an all-star cast of Ann-Margret, Van Heflin, Bing Crosby, Mike Connors, Bob Cummings, Red Buttons, Slim Pickens, Stephanie Powers and Keenen Wynn. But oddly, the only cast member not well known then or now is the film's main character played by Alex Cord. As "the Ringo Kid" in 1939, John Wayne was a powerful presence, dominating the screen and making the Kid seem like the strong, feared, but ultimately good character he was intended to be. Cord seems to play the part as if he's brooding. Maybe trying to be James Dean. He mumbles and seems distracted. Makes you wonder why anyone would fear him or even why Ann-Margret's character would give him the time of day.

This film has much better production values than the 1939 version. The chase scenes and gunfights are well done. The acting is first rate by everyone except Red Buttons, who woefully overacts in a supporting role and Cord, who brings the movie down with his poor acting in the starring role. Overall, the film is worth seeing as an entertaining western. Just be prepared to cringe at Cord's performance.

Similar cast of characters as its 1939 namesake. But only Bing Crosby as Doc Boone really shines among the passengers on this stagecoach journey. Van Heflin as the sheriff tried, but was disappointing. Silm Pickens as the stage driver always fits neatly into any western like a well fitting glove. Alec Cord as Ringo was rather wooden in his performance. Ann-Margaret seemed uncomfortable in her role. But to me she has always been a heart-throb. She fits all her other film roles like a smooth silky glove! Just watching her is akin to an art connoisseur staring with total appreciation at any of the world's most beautiful paintings!

But this movie does have something that Ford's 1939 production lacks. And that is crisp outdoor color photography. And let's add to that, Norman Rockwell's excellent portraits of the main characters, which would have been better served with the opening credits instead of at the end. To me, Norman rockwell's paintings are always enjoyable to look at, anytime.