La Belle Aventurière

The fun of this film is telling the story from three different viewpoints -- each version diametrically opposed to the others -- what is the truth? probably a mixture of all of them -- it's a fun film with DeCarlo in fine form and the feuding brothers fighting it out for her affections is half the fun.

Wonderful Yvonne De Carlo! This story of two cousins,vying with each others for a valuable property ,waiting for the ancestor's death (but it seems he is not about to kick the bucket) is a comedy where nobody seems to take things seriously ;there's a very long fight between the two heirs towards the end and Yvonne's choice does not seem to be the wisest,if we consider the very last picture of the movie.

But it does not matter;the only thing that matters is miss De Carlo:when she appears ,we only have eyes for her;her two songs are a true delight (the second one is witty,funny and infectious);generally I do not go much for those saloon ballads but those are the highlights of the movie.

The story is told by three old "witnesses";thus the arrival of the lady is filmed three times,each one giving his own version of the facts.

Yvonne De Carlo (Lillian) rides into town and becomes the focus of attention for two cousins - Scott Brady (Lee) and John Russell (Grant) - who really don't like each other. They are both super powerful and run half of Arizona each. They are just waiting for old-timer Charles Coburn (General O'Hara) to pop his clogs and then they can battle it out to take complete control of the state.

The story is told in flashback as three old-timers relate their viewpoint of how De Carlo interacted with the two cousins and we learn what happened in the gaps between the stories. The film is basically about the rivalry between the two cousins with the added interest of who De Carlo will ultimately choose to procreate with. That's what we watch for - who will she choose?

The cast are pretty unpleasant - including De Carlo - apart from Coburn who is the funniest as is to be expected. He shines whilst the others don't in this completely unrealistic story. Throw in some terrible songs as well. Not a particularly good film.

"The Gal Who Took the West" is a nice looking film from Universal Studios. It's obvious they put a decent amount of money into the picture, after all, they filmed it in color, but the story is pretty dopey.

When the story begins, a reporter in the present day goes out west to investigate the story of the O'Haras and Miss Marlowe. Three different old coots from the town tell a slightly different tale...a bit like "Rashomon".

It seems that when Lillian Marlowe arrived in the town back during the time of the old west, the land around the territory was run by the O'Hara clan. The General (Charles Coburn) is the family patriarch and his two nephews (John Russell and Scott Brady) are rivals and hate each other with an intensity that seems almost comical. Both of the cousins instantly fall for her and because she's so amazingly sexy and wonderful, they're about to start a little war to get her. The rest of the film is about efforts to stop this insane hatred from boiling over.

The film, to me, seemed like a western combined with an episode of Popeye. This is NOT meant as a good thing and the cousins just seem stupid and annoying. Plus, none of it really makes any sense. Overall, it's a picture that looks great but not much more.

Other than THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, I do not know of another Western that as accurately captures the true nature of the West - and the men and women who settled it. The plot is that of a romantic comedy, but the characters are wonderfully written and acted - far better than in most 'serious' films.

The two brothers battling each other for the affection of one women is both funny - and dramatically believable. And the telling of the story from three different points of view is superbly done.

In my opinion, this is one of the most under-rated films ever made in Hollywood.

Don't miss it!