A desperate grasp for cheap sentimentalism, or at least it would be if it weren't for John Wayne's performance. He was dying of cancer at the time, and he plays a man who is dying of cancer. Why should anyone even have to try? Yet John Wayne, class act that he is, gives a remarkable performance enriched with deep pathos and humanity, far more than anyone could expect from such an otherwise mediocre film. Damn every claim that Wayne was not a great actor; the proof of the opposite can be found far and wide in the man's filmography, and one of the best examples can be found in The Shootist. After Wayne, James Stewart gives a good supporting performance as his doctor. Harry Morgan is the only actor in the film who really impresses besides its star. Ron Howard I've always found difficult to take seriously, what with all his television roles and his mostly mediocre and overrated directorial career. But he's pretty good here, and he especially has a good final scene. Lauren Bacall is the low point in the film. She was never a good actress, let's face it. Well, she did decently in To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep, but all the other roles I've seen of hers were painfully dull. She's particularly awful here. It's pretty sad when you're totally outclassed by Ron Howard. And then she has to act opposite Wayne giving his all? Truly, truly embarrassing. I don't really want to bitch out Don Siegel, who surely made some fine films in his day. But his direction here is painfully mediocre. Any hour-long episode of any television Western has much more talent behind it. He may not have been a hack director, but it sure feels like a hack director was standing behind the camera during the movie's filming. The screenplay is poorly constructed, but it has some rather good dialogue, most of it belonging to Wayne. I like Elmer Bernstein's score, too, most of the time. The music over the closing credits is particularly good.