I wonder if anyone has ever figured out how many Western movies have been made over the years. Thousands? And they all boil down to a half-a-dozen basic plots. You could probably take 90% of the Westerns ever made and dump them in a vat of hydrochloric acid, and not many people would ever notice. You'd still have hundreds left.
So the question is, what makes a Western worth watching now that we are well over the 1950s mania for Westerns. Well, somewhat unique plots get extra points (perhaps along the lines of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"). Star power is another factor (such as in "Rio Bravo"). Or the unique ability of a particular director who can weave something special out of very common cloth (such as John Ford).
"Firecreek" is certainly not one of the GREAT Westerns. But I wouldn't dump it in that vat of HCL acid, either. It's saving grace are the performances of the 2 primary stars -- Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda. And, the director (whom you probably never heard of) does a nice job (though not award winning level) of telling the story. That story is simple -- the bad guys ride into town (in this case they appear to be ex-Confederates), and it's up to the honorary sheriff (Stewart) to solve the problem. There is a twist -- the chief of the bad guys is none other than Henry Fonda. Of course, Stewart has a family, including a wife who is about to deliver a baby.
There's a problem here, and one that I rarely am concerned with. Jimmy Stewart was 60 years old when he made this film, and yet he's going to be a father again. Not impossible, but this was out of his age range. I much preferred him in "Bandolero" (with Dean Martin), made the same year, where he pretty much acted his age. So, to enjoy "Firecreek", you're going to just have to get over the age issue. I was thinking that they could have solved the issue by having the wife of Stewart's son, who was away for some reason, and Stewart acting as the father/grandfather. That would have worked. I've always felt, also, that Stewart sometimes overacted PHYSICALLY in some action scenes, and he does here; perhaps it's just because of him being so lean and lanky. But it's still a really fine performance.
I'm a little surprised that Henry Fonda accepted this role. In it, he plays a totally pathetic character. He has far fewer good scenes than Jimmy Steward, although a few are really good.
Another problem with this film is that most of the film is a growing menace, and it takes a very long time for the real action to start. When it does, I am reminded of Gary Cooper in "High Noon". Although it's hardly the same story, once again it is one man against the bad guys.
One of the best scenes in the film belongs to Dean Jagger.
The film has some of the best supporting actors around at the time. Inger Stevens An old Dean Jagger. An old Ed Begley. An old Jay C. Flippen. Jack Elam in one of his final films.
This is not one of the great Westerns, but it is heads above your average Western. Recommended.
So the question is, what makes a Western worth watching now that we are well over the 1950s mania for Westerns. Well, somewhat unique plots get extra points (perhaps along the lines of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"). Star power is another factor (such as in "Rio Bravo"). Or the unique ability of a particular director who can weave something special out of very common cloth (such as John Ford).
"Firecreek" is certainly not one of the GREAT Westerns. But I wouldn't dump it in that vat of HCL acid, either. It's saving grace are the performances of the 2 primary stars -- Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda. And, the director (whom you probably never heard of) does a nice job (though not award winning level) of telling the story. That story is simple -- the bad guys ride into town (in this case they appear to be ex-Confederates), and it's up to the honorary sheriff (Stewart) to solve the problem. There is a twist -- the chief of the bad guys is none other than Henry Fonda. Of course, Stewart has a family, including a wife who is about to deliver a baby.
There's a problem here, and one that I rarely am concerned with. Jimmy Stewart was 60 years old when he made this film, and yet he's going to be a father again. Not impossible, but this was out of his age range. I much preferred him in "Bandolero" (with Dean Martin), made the same year, where he pretty much acted his age. So, to enjoy "Firecreek", you're going to just have to get over the age issue. I was thinking that they could have solved the issue by having the wife of Stewart's son, who was away for some reason, and Stewart acting as the father/grandfather. That would have worked. I've always felt, also, that Stewart sometimes overacted PHYSICALLY in some action scenes, and he does here; perhaps it's just because of him being so lean and lanky. But it's still a really fine performance.
I'm a little surprised that Henry Fonda accepted this role. In it, he plays a totally pathetic character. He has far fewer good scenes than Jimmy Steward, although a few are really good.
Another problem with this film is that most of the film is a growing menace, and it takes a very long time for the real action to start. When it does, I am reminded of Gary Cooper in "High Noon". Although it's hardly the same story, once again it is one man against the bad guys.
One of the best scenes in the film belongs to Dean Jagger.
The film has some of the best supporting actors around at the time. Inger Stevens An old Dean Jagger. An old Ed Begley. An old Jay C. Flippen. Jack Elam in one of his final films.
This is not one of the great Westerns, but it is heads above your average Western. Recommended.