Les cinq hors-la-loi

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.

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.

Firecreek is a somber western indeed about a man who is a sheriff and in the end forced to act like one. And an outlaw who's also forced to act like one.

Five outlaws led by Henry Fonda are dodging a posse and go to this out of the way town called Firecreek. Fonda leads a real motley crew of killers in Morgan Woodward, Jack Elam, James Best, and Gary Lockwood. Though Fonda says stay out of trouble and don't start anything, their outlaw natures get the better of them.

James Stewart is the part-time sheriff here. The place is so small it doesn't usually need and can't afford a real professional lawman. It makes the town of Hadleyville in High Noon look like Chicago. Stewart is more of a constable who usually just has to jail those who get inebriated on Saturday night.

Stewart also has other problems like a wife who's about to give birth to their third child. That's the conflict he's undergoing.

Fonda in a performance similar at times to Gregory Peck in The Gunfighter is weary of the life and finds a little romance going with Inger Stevens. But Peck rode alone and Fonda is responsible for the leadership of this gang.

A whole gang of familiar players like Ed Begley, John Qualen, Dean Jagger, and Jay C. Flippen are some of the town citizens. But the most touching portrayal is that of J. Robert Porter who plays the tragic, slightly retarded stable boy. What happens to him sets the stage for the climax.

Other than separate appearances in How the West Was Won, the only joint screen effort for Princeton graduates and lifetime best friends, James Stewart and Henry Fonda was in On Our Merry Way. This second joint venture was not greeted with glowing reviews at the time. But Firecreek has definitely held up well over the years.

Though the climax is completely ripped off from High Noon it is still a well choreographed gun battle just as High Noon was.

The job of sheriff even in a hole in the wall like Firecreek is not one for amateurs.

This film shows the power of the motion picture. It is entertaining and it sends a strong message about doing the right thing while avoiding stereotyped good and bad characters. It stars Jimmy Stewart as a farmer is also the honorary part time sheriff. A gang of outlaws lead by Henry Fonda rides into town and starts to cause trouble. Stewart and the rest of the town folk want to avoid rocking the boat and figure that the new visitors are none of their business. It is only after a terrible event that Stewart finally realizes the mistake of inaction and understands that it is everyone's responsibility to stand up for what is right. The true beauty of this film is that neither the hero or the villain are common Western stereotypes. They much more resemble real people. The hero is more concerned with his own life and doesn't want to risk bodily harm trying to stop troublemakers that will be gone by morning. The lead villain is a man that seems to be trapped by his own reputation. He doesn't agree with what his gang is doing, but feels that they expect certain things from their leader. He says, "I don't know what to do, I feel like I am on a greased pig trying to hold on." When asked why he doesn't just leave the gang he responds that he spent his whole life building a reputation and he can't go back to being a nobody. The greatness of this picture is that it has the noble purpose of bettering its viewers, but it does not sacrifice its entertainment value to achieve it.

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.