Red River (1988 TV Movie) User Reviews

Misses The Tiomkin Score

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 14 July 2007]

Though James Arness and Bruce Boxleitner are a good fit for the roles originated by John Wayne and Montgomery Clift and Ray Walston stands in very well as the old-timer sidekick to both instead of Walter Brennan, the television remake of Red River sinks right to the bottom.

The thing that I missed most from the original film was Dimitri Tiomkin's music, one of the finest film scores ever done. It really set the tone for the film, actually helped give you that sense of movement of the cattle, helped you empathize with the size and scope of the herd and the task that John Wayne undertook in the original.

If the producers had done nothing else, they should have paid whatever price was necessary to get that music.

Whole chunks of dialog from the original is taken. There is a new plot component in this film that of black cowboy Stan Shaw who Boxleitner and Arness take on despite racial objections from some of the ex-Confederate soldiers would have made. Shaw does a fine job and his inclusion is the only improvement on the original because in real life Wayne and Clift would no doubt have had black cowboys on their drive.

Laura Johnson as a Civil War widow is an extreme let down from Joanne Dru's slinky Tess Millay from the original. It wasn't Johnson's fault, just not a good idea to change her type. But that was necessary to set up the confrontation between Bruce Boxleitner and Gregory Harrison who has John Ireland's part which is also a big plot change from the original.

I think those who remember fondly the John Wayne classic will be much let down with this one.

Remake gets a bad rap!

[cherriw · 7/10 · 11 April 2009]

Everybody knows that John Wayne was the King of the westerns, but dumping on this TV movie remake is really unfair. Compared to all the reality and talent shows, this was a nice change of pace. Lots of us wish more westerns were made but it is a genre that is sadly overlooked with all the spy, war, kung fu and bizarre sex shows being produced nowadays. The story line for this remake was an improvement over the original. Bruce Boxleitner is still a hunk. James Arness played against type which had to be a real challenge. I believed he was an embittered old man who was used to his word being law. I always thought Clift was a little over-the-top and tried too hard as opposed to Boxleitner who showed the change that comes over a man who sees too much of the horrors of war. Gregory Harrison tried a little too hard as well, but the young cowboy and the black horse-breaker as well as Ray Walston more than made up for what Harrison lacked. If you judge the movie on its own merit and without comparing it to its predecessor, I think a good western story still beats out most of the trash passing for entertainment on TV. So give these guys a break, why don't you?

I don't remember a whole lot about the original "Red River", except that it was a lot more rich and entertaining than its lackluster remake

[TheUnknown837-1 · 5/10 · 18 November 2009]

The last time I saw the original 1948 "Red River" with John Wayne was when I was about ten years old. I don't remember a whole lot of it other than it was a rich, enthralling Western like "The Searchers" (1956) and in no need for a remake. But, four decades after its release, it was remade…and rather poorly, which is very disappointing since its two leads were very well-cast.

Wayne's friend James Arness takes his role in the remake and Montgomery Clift's role is redone by Bruce Boxleitner. These two would later work well again in one of the "Gunsmoke" movies. And even with this mincemeat teleplay, they manage to communicate much of the spirit that the original actors did in the original film.

However, that does not make the remake of "Red River" a good movie. Rather, it's a flat and mediocre adaptation of a beloved classic. There is some nice scenery, good performances, and swell intentions, but the problem is that the screenwriters wrote this with such low enthusiasm and maybe a little too much respect for the original, as if they realized in the process of writing that they couldn't even come close to the source and didn't bother to put much effort into it. It seems like they expected all viewers to already know the original "Red River" by heart and therefore be able to close up all the holes and gaps that were being formed here. The point of a remake is to at least illuminate the original, update it, and maybe strength a few weak spots, not open new ones. There is very little character strength, no real sense of connection, gaps of logic, a completely unnecessary addition of a love triangle, and an ending that is even more rushed than the surprisingly sudden ending of the original. In short, the remake of "Red River" can be described in two simple words: boring and unnecessary.

This Movie Re-Make Should Have Never Been Made!

[wgie · 14 May 2008]

Watch the original and don't waste you time on this flick. Wayne and Clift are perfectly cast, and while I always enjoyed James Arness as Marshall Dillon...he is not right for this movie. This movie re-make should have never been made. On a lighter note, I remember actor Victor Mature was offered the role played by John Wayne in the original film by actor Sylvester Stallone who was intending to play the Montgomery Clift role in the film. Mature's response was "I'll play his (Stallone's) mother for the right money!" Fortunately, somebody got this one right...and didn't to it. Truth is some classics are best served by just leaving them alone.

Not Bad

[garyldibert · 6/10 · 6 July 2008]

This movie made for TV. Aired on April 10 1988 starring James Arness as Thomas Dunson, Bruce Boxlietner as Matthew Garth and Ty Hardin as Cotton. Thomas Dunson as a dream and the dream is to have the biggest cattle ranch in Texas. Years later, Dunson has forefeel his dream, however he has one problem? There know place to take his cattle to market unless he takes his cattle across 1000 dangerous miles of Texas land. Dunson also doesn't have to much help and there's several dangerous. Not only does Dunson have to deal with the dry conditions, he also has to deal with Indians, Cattle Rustlers, and a few unexpected circumstances that Dunson didn't count on. This wasn't a bad TV movie because it had what makes a good western. Plenty of action adventures and cows. Based on that I give this movie 6 weasel stars.

See the original

[texseabee · 1/10 · 21 July 2005]

This movie tries so hard to be like the original, they practically follow the same script. But there were several problems, first, James Arness does not play the mean spirited cattle baron very well. I could not see him killing a man in cold blood or beating a man with a bull whip. He has the tendency to smile when he should be biting nails and spitting blood.

Then again, Bruce Boxleitner does not seem to love James Arness like a son. There is no quiet respect between them.

Most of the other problems I feel were directorial mistakes. How did Laura Johnson beat Thomas Dunson to Abilene when she was with the wagon train and he was riding hell bent for leather. I could have believed she left before him, but not 12+ hours, long enough to spend the night with Matthew Garth.

The only person who played his part well was Ray Walstan as Groot the cook.

Imitation is flattery but not improvement

[george-f-adams · 4/10 · 23 June 2009]

Amazing.

I would have thought Marshall Dillon could play John Wayne better than he did. But I wouldn't have thought there'd be a reason for having him do it in the first place. The confrontation scenes called for Wayne's swaggering in-your-face style, but, despite his lines, James Arness seemed to be trying to defuse his own fight, keeping law and order in Dodge City on Saturday night.

Taking a truly classic movie and trying to improve it by having different actors repeat the same lines is basically stupid. Adding a minor twist here and there in an otherwise identical plot only makes the viewer think someone made a mistake.

As for realism, where did they get the height-challenged cattle to walk around the street? Were they all calves born during the drive? I know the actors are tall, but not that tall. And need I mention the Indians that kept getting shot off their horses while the number riding in circles uselessly shaking tomahawks never decreased, and there were never any casualties lying on the ground?

If a band of village idiots ever remake The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly they'd better keep the original music, or they'll find that only it and Clint Eastwood made the movie a legend. If anyone doubts this, they need only watch the remake of Red River to understand.

Makes You Appreciate How Good Wayne Was

[joeparkson · 4/10 · 14 September 2009]

I like James Arness. I grew up with Gunsmoke. Unfortunately, he doesn't dominate a scene like John Wayne, nor does he have the acting range of Wayne. Bruce Boxleitner's Garth was not as good as Montgomery Clift's, nor was Gregory Harrison's Cherry up to the standards of John Ireland's. However, these are not fatal to the movie. Dunson is the heart of the movie. If you're going to remake Red River, you'd better have a good Dunson.

Maybe it has to do with learning the right cadence of delivering your lines so that they take on real meaning, maybe it's reacting to the other actors so that it seems like you're actually listening to them.

I'm a little surprised, since Arness was a friend of John Wayne's and acted in several of his movies. You'd think Arness would have learned something. Just compare the bar scene where Dunson lays out the plan and the rules for the upcoming cattle drive.

Too bad. This movie has a great cast, with old names from the past (like Ty Hardin, John Lupton, LQ Jones, etc.), but every single member of the cast has done far better work in other movies or other TV shows.

It also hurts that the original was directed by Howard Hawks and had that wonderful Dimitri Tiomkin score.

Never remake a John Wayne movie

[playmore1226 · 1/10 · 18 July 2021]

I'm a James Arness/Gunsmoke fan but never, I mean never remake a John Wayne movie!!! Not even close to the quality of the original!!! Can't believe Arness did this!!!

Not really a classic remake

[topshotbt · 27 April 2004]

A nice story, but pales compared to the John Wayne, Monte Cliff original of 1948. Too many subplots, confusing characterizations and a wandering theme of a troubled trail drive and its boss driver...Arness is one-dimensional, lacks the charisma of a John Wayne (don't they all)...Bruce Boxlietner is a good looking stud, but could never give the penetrating characterization portrayed by Monte Cliff, a truly remarkable performance. The original offered a clean plot and built to a great conflict between a father and son...this made for TV version is action packed, but is totally unremarkable. See the 1948 Red River for a genuine treat of the classic western and Hollywood at its finest.

Oh dear

[Crimpo2 · 1/10 · 29 April 2005]

Some films just shouldn't be re-made, even if the original is inconvenient enough to be in a foreign language or black and white.

That's not me being prissy because good films like great songs are often made over again and again. However, with films like Red River a new version can only suffer when put against the original.

Seen for itself this might be a decent example of the new western but up against the legends of the past it is always fighting a losing battle. The standards of acting, direction, technical horsemanship and music were just too good to be repeated now when the Western is a rare appearance rather than a movie career. Shame - but when the re-makes of The Godfather and Star Wars come out all of you will know what I mean!

Hard For Me To Watch

[Calaboss · 4/10 · 7 November 2017]

To be fair, as a TV movie, this is barely passable entertainment. Beyond that, everything is a stretch. There is no discounting that this is a (kinda) remake of the 1948 classic, starring John Wayne. Unfortunately, while the original was over 2 hours long, this had to be cut down to fit in a two hour TV movie time slot, and to get commercials in. As such, over 30 minutes of the movie was just cut out. Further, unrelated subplots involving an ex-slave and a teen-aged boy take about 10 more minutes away from the story. Imagine if one of your favorite movies, say Casablanca or The Matrix, was remade missing 45 minutes of the story. Gives me shivers.

The original was directed by Howard Hawks, who also gave us Sergeant York, The Big Sleep, and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, among others. This film is directed by Richard Michaels, whose biggest claim to fame seems to be directing a batch of Bewitched and Brady Bunch episodes. Further, as a TV movie, this was very tightly budgeted, and it shows in horrible ways. For instance, the herd of cattle they are driving is supposed to be 10,000 strong, but they apparently could only afford a couple dozen cows. How did they deal with this? By inserting stock footage from other westerns, including some grainy shots, apparently from the 1950's, that stand out like a fat lip.

Add to this that it stars James Arness, who at this point was only making Gunsmoke TV movies. John Wayne was 41 when he made his version. James Arness was 65, which is WAY too old for the character.

I could go on, but you get the point. If you haven't seen the original, you might be able to enjoy this. If you have seen the original, then no, you won't like it any better than I did.

Definitely a TV remake

[tango0-1 · 3/10 · 13 September 2009]

They should have left the original alone. John Wayne must be turning in his grave. Love triangle between Jerry and Matt was an unnecessary addition. Why ruin a perfect scenario.The Indian attack was weak. So much more could have been done. If you are going to remake a movie make sure its better. Most of the acting was weak. You don't care about the characters. What were they thinking. James Arness is OK but not crazy enough. For men to mutiny there has to be more of a change in Arness character. It's too flat lined.. Okay to watch with a couple of beers when nothing else is on. Luckily only original available on DVD. I hope they keep it that way.

Fair or not, this version will always be compared to the original

[marmac2768 · 4/10 · 25 August 2016]

I am a big fan of the original with Duke, Montie, Brennan and Ireland. Great performances with a great script and the beeyootefull music score. So, I was a little skeptical when I had a chance to watch it. At first, I was surprised at how entertaining it was. To begin with.

The pros: one thing that often happens with remakes is, the cast overdoes it. They try to adapt themselves to the original performances. Big mistake. Like Jeff Daniels does with the remake of True Grit. He tried to BE John Wayne. He is NOT John Wayne, just a poor copy. In this movie, Bruce Boxleitner played Garth as Bruce Boxleitner, not as Montgomery Clift. The others, the same way. That made the story more believable. I thought that he was VERY good in this part. He doesn't have quite the "angst" that Clift played this role with, but a good effort. Ray Walston does good in his role. Nobody can do Walter Brennan, so don't try. He gives a solid performance. There are a couple of times when they left the old script (I'll talk about that in the "cons"), but they stayed pretty much with the same story line.

The cons: James Arness as Dunson?? BIG mistake! I would have thought of several actors that could have done it better than him. Sam Elliot comes to my mind, he could have done it well, don't know if he was available, but they could have done much better if someone like him could have done it. James Arness had too much "Marshall Dillon" in him. Plus, at the end, he just leaves the part all together and ends up being a bad copy of the Duke. Again, it may not be fair, but when it shows him "wading" through the cattle for the "big showdown", he just does not carry himself as Duke did in the original.

Gregory Harrison as Cherry?? OMG, he was just horrible!! I know, part of the problem was they cast him against his type, and the character just went off the rails over the woman. John Irelands Cherry was a MAN, pure and simple. Harrison portrays him as a spoiled, womanizing brat.

Plot lines: This movie really went off the deep end when they had Cherry go crazy over the woman. Him goading Matt into a gunfight just was ridiculous. He wouldn't have done that, he was a flawed character, but he was still loyal. Plus, him doing what he did, cheated the audience out of one of the great scenes in the original, where Cherry tries to intervene at the showdown between Garth and Dunson and Dunson shot him. That showed how close Cherry and Matt had grown to each other. Big missing part!

The finding of Abilene: it shows Matt and his two scouts looking for Abilene. They are sitting up on a rise and wondering if they will ever find Abilene and wondering if the railroad was there. Then, they hear a locomotive whistle and it come in view, no matter that the tracks are only a few hundred feet away! They could have seen it for a long time! Then, the scene that is missing from the original is when Matt talks to the locomotive engineer and he is so happy. That scene is not there!! A lot is left off from Abilene as well. The scene with the cattle buyer is just so short, but, in the original, you can see how amazed the buyer is and how inexperienced Matt is. This guy could have taken Matt for a big score, but he doesn't do that and gives him a good price. Shows the difference between men of the last century and today. At least how Hollywood depicts it for the movie.

It seemed as if the producers were fixing to run out of film and they had to hurry to finish it.

The ending: YUCK!!! YUCK, YUCK, YUCK!! Does not work as good as the original. It left me very empty. Joanne Dru, in the climax was just so much better than Laura Johnson. A lot of emotion comes through. You can see that SHE KNOWS THEM BETTER THAN THEY KNOW THEMSELVES. And, the part where Dunson and Garth are lying there and "the lights come on" is missing as well. The climax of the movie is just so ...... 80's!! Did I say .... YUCK!!

I thought that, if this comes on again, I might watch it, it wasn't that bad. But, I would cue up the final part on my original DVD, from where they hear the locomotive whistle blowing till the end, and, when it got to that point on the TV movie, cut on my DVD and watch it to the end with Duke and Clift fighting and Tess firing the gun at them. That is a classic end to a great movie.

A really good shoe !

[sandcrab · 7 October 2003]

A great cast for a television remake with the exception of Gregory Harrison. He couldn't sweep the floor John Ireland walked on yet alone give a performance like in the 48 version of this rugged western. Lets face it, some just aren't meant to be cowboys even if they can't surf. Boxleitner and Arness work good together and pretty much carry this production. A probable reason why they paired again for the 1994 made for television film "Gunsmoke: One Man's Justice." I'll have to admit that I kept waiting for Peter Graves to come on after commercial breaks and announce "and now, back to Gunsmoke, staring James Arness !"

Nothing beats the original

[playmore1226 · 1/10 · 18 July 2021]

James Aeneas is one of my favorite actors but no one and mean no one remakes a John Wayne movie! Not even close the quality of the original, can't believe Arness attempted it!

Red River

[dukeakasmudge · 1/10 · 28 August 2016]

***Spoilers Ahead, Most definitely*** I only watched Red River because James Arness was in it.If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have watched this movie at all.I watched about 2-3 Westerns recently that have been strictly about Cattle Drives & I found them to be BORING.I hoped Red River was going to be different especially since James Arness was in it but I found Red River to be boring as well (Maybe I'm just not into Westerns that are all about Cattle Drives) After James Arness's character Thomas Dunson was booted off the cattle drive & it was taken over by Matthew, I thought (Maybe) things will start to pick up & become interesting.It did but not by much.Red River felt dull & flat right from the start & was that way the entire movie.I think the best thing about Red River was the ending because after Thomas was booted from the cattle drive, he told Matthew to always look over his shoulder & that someday he'd kill him so I expected him to follow through with his threat but in the end.....

TV "Red River"--an Insult!

[daryllassen · 5/10 · 4 September 2023]

Aging differential of Arness and Matt characters poor and confusing. Interference of fast gun ramrod unnecessary. If Arness character was "broke", how could he quickly gather a bunch of well-dressed posse men!? Love affair triangle screwy . . . Probably because Arness too old, although the love talk was well done. Indian conflict not genuine. The last father/son fight was not as well done as original and there was little cowhand personalities interjected there. Getting someone younger than Arness would have cleared many things up. Arness is great, but too aged for this role. Scenery great; photography, plot and characters NO where close to original. That's TV, right!?

A hall of fame, not really a film

[fredit-43004 · 4/10 · 15 September 2022]

Check out the cast list, if you've forgotten. This 1988 film hearkens back to the epic blockbusters and disaster films of a few decades earlier, where the audience was kept awake playing the game of Spot The Star in the dozen or so cameos. Here we have the cinematic equivalent of an all-star game of western stars, who even in 1988, might have shined in a small original part they could make their own. "Red River" certainly did not warrant a remake. Perhaps MGM would have done better to put together a Wild West version of "That's Entertainment". Regardless, my enjoyment of this film was mostly due to seeing all the old familiar faces, now a bit older, and remembering them in their glory days.

Stick with the Original

[Michael_Elliott · 7 December 2010]

Red River (1988)

** (out of 4)

Watered-down remake of Howard Hawks' 1948 classic has James Arness stepping in for John Wayne and Bruce Boxleitner doing the Montgomery Clift part. Once again we see tyrant Arness taking a cattle drive 1,000 miles and battling a wide range of things. I always found it interesting when these made-for-TV flicks would come along and remake classics from the past. I think sometimes they worked to minor entertainment (STAGECOACH) but at other times you really have to wonder what the entire point was. This remake runs nearly thirty-minutes shorter and everything missing is pretty much the heart and soul to the original movie. It really does seem like the filmmakers and cast simply sat down, watched the original and then just done a cheap copy of it without trying to improve anything. Some people might give this film credit for being smart enough to not trying anything different but in the end we're left with a rather bland film without any excitement and little entertainment. I think the biggest problem is the actual screenplay, which adds very little to the original movie and what it does add doesn't get the job done. On the cattle drive there's a kid involved but this goes no where. We also have a former slave along for the ride who gets racist cowboys after him but again, this adds nothing. The entire relationship between Arness and Boxleitner has no emotion behind it and everything that worked in the original is missing here. You don't care about either men, their cattle, their journey or anything else. The entire film is just a reenactment of the original and it just isn't entertaining. Both Arness and Boxleitner sleepwalk through their roles as does Gregory Harrison as Cherry Valance. Ray Walston takes over the role that Walter Brennan originally played and he's the best thing here. RED RIVER has very little going for it and if you think it's unfair to compare the film to the remake then I'd agree. The only problem is that the film doesn't work on its own either.

Terrible remake by Arness!!

[oldwoodworks · 28 October 2023]

You know John Wayne in a sense gave Arness his shot at Gunsmoke... turning down the role as Dillon. Wayne suggested Arness for the role. Arness never really a confident actor or rider on horse was just an average actor who just happened to be in a long running TV show. Never really carried a lead role in any movie.

They is only one Red River movie starring John Wayne and the best Arness could do was to copy the original for a TV movie no less... with poor results. A movie of has beens.

Arness was never a leader or a leading man with confidence.

Shame on him and others for making this movie!!