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
Post a Comment