Review: Warlock

The frightened citizens of the title town hire gunslinger Henry Fonda as the local lawman to rid the town of a gang of bandits led by Tom Drake and DeForest Kelley. Anthony Quinn plays Fonda’s travelling companion, a club-footed gambler and gunman who hopes this will be a short-term stay. Fonda’s romance with a local gal (played by a bland Dolores Michaels) stands in the way. Richard Widmark plays one of Drake’s men, who starts to have second thoughts, whilst Dorothy Malone plays a woman with a grudge against Fonda and Quinn who hooks up with Widmark.

 

Popular with some critics, this 1959 western from director Edward Dmytryk (“The Caine Mutiny”, “Mirage”, “Broken Lance”) underwhelmed me a bit. Henry Fonda has a nice, quiet authority to him and Anthony Quinn walks off with the film has his gambler-gunslinger companion. It’s one of Quinn’s best turns and he shares good chemistry with Fonda as well. For his part, Fonda has a couple of speeches he delivers perfectly. In support, Dorothy Malone is her usual terrific self and DeForest Kelley is surprisingly good as a slimy, goading henchman. The film is well-shot too, by Joseph MacDonald (“Niagara”, “The Young Lions”) as he and the director stage and frame the gunfights really, really well.

 

However…it doesn’t quite come off in the end, partly due to two unfortunate casting choices. Tom Drake plays the film’s chief villain, and whilst Kelley and the other henchman are a solid, black-hearted bunch of shitheads, Drake simply hasn’t got the presence or authority for the part. He’s thoroughly mediocre, entirely unthreatening, and instantly forgettable. One wonders if the film would be considerably better with Kelley or Richard Widmark in the Drake role. The other issue comes from a surprising source – the aforementioned Richard Widmark – though it’s not entirely his fault. The film’s pacing is deathly slow and Dmytryk and screenwriter Robert Alan Aurthur (“Edge of the City”, “All That Jazz”) leave his character standing on the sidelines waiting for his purpose to come into play. The film itself is overall too slow and too long, needing to get to the heart much quicker. I don’t think it’s Widmark’s best performance in the slightest (and he’s almost always terrific), he seems to know he’s got a dud role and doesn’t quite put enough investment in it. When his character finally becomes interesting – after almost an hour – it’s too long and too late, and I think Widmark is a bit too old for the role anyway. I also didn’t think his character’s transition was believably presented either, to be honest.

 

Popular with some, this western’s somewhat underwhelming for me. Some of the performances are terrific, others less so. The whole thing is too long and too slow, and just OK at best. I can’t join the critical bandwagon on this one, I’m afraid.

 

Rating: C+

 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Hellraiser (2022)

Review: Cinderella (1950)

Review: Eugenie de Sade