Along the Great Divide (1951)

Excellent but underrated film

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

I generally like westerns, which is why I was attracted to watching this one when it popped up on Turner Classic Movies. But because I have watched so many westerns before this one, I have to confess I didn't find much that was new and/or energetic with this one. It does have some nice background scenery, though its full impact is a bit muted by the fact that it's photographed in black and white instead of color. (I'm not prejudiced against black and white movies - I just think THIS particular one would be better in color.) The performances by the cast are adequate; Douglas does pretty well as the stubborn (but all the same conflicted at times) marshal. But the script, while it may have been somewhat original back in 1951, will seem very familiar today to people, even among many who are not fans of westerns. It's painfully clear who is actually guilty of the murder that's at the heart of the movie (and why), and the struggle to bring the accused party to justice (which takes up most of the movie) just brings up one familiar plot turn after another, from lack of water to the feisty lone female. While all this is professionally staged and executed, I think the only people today who might be really entertained by the movie would be those who have seen no westerns before in their lives.

The 1950's brought us a lot of great Westerns - The Naked Spur, High Noon, Man of the West, 3:10 to Yuma, Shane, Vera Cruz and others. Unfortunately this is not one of them despite the hand of the Great Director Raoul Walsh. No it is not bad but overall this is a routine western - straightforward story - Old guy wrongly accused of murder (Walter Brennan), taken by Marshall (Kirk Douglas) for trial, chased by rich rancher (Morris Ankrum) whose son was killed, Marshall has hots for old guy's daughter (Virginia Mayo) despite all the tension between them. It does have its moments and a good cast despite all the western clichés and Kirk Douglas's clenched teeth. Enjoyable though and wrapped up in a tidy 88 minutes.

It's one of those "journey" stories in which a group with mixed motives must cross dangerous territory to reach their goal. In this case, the territory is a desert, as it was in so many other Westerns -- "They Came to Cordura," "Three Godfathers", and the rest.Nice cast, too, with performers that are either reasonably good, like Kirk Douglas in the lead role of a US Marshall who must get his prisoner, Walter Brennan, to San Loma without his being lynched, or else merely seasoned, like Roy Teal, or at least no worse than we've come to expect of them, like Virginia Mayo and John Agar.The script wastes little time on meanders. It's tightly drawn, even though the script lacks the folk poetry of the Westerns that Burt Kennedy wrote for Budd Boettiger. That is, the dialog is functional but nobody says anything like, "Ma'am, if you was my woman I'd have come for you even if I'd of died in the doin' of it." The location shooting is quite good. The desert is convincingly captured, even though the movie really deserves color. The director, Raoul Walsh, knows how to shoot a movie and maintain pace and complexity. What a craftsman! In outlining the more admirable features of the film, I've thrown in a lot of qualifications, and for a reason. Overall, it resembles a story left over from some B Western of the 1930s, starring John Wayne or Wild Bill Elliot or Bob Steele. They had names like "The Star Packer" and "Melody Ranch" and "Shadows on the Sage." Everyone did his job but brought nothing extra to the production. It begins with the generic Western title: "Along the Great Divide." The great divide has nothing to do with it. The story moves along efficiently and without much soul.Douglas is fine, Brennan is okay, and Jim Anderson, the real villain, is as abrasive on film as he was in real life. He was the redneck who spit on Gregory Peck's lawyer in "To Kill a Mockingbird." He may have enjoyed the chance because he and Peck hated each other. Virginia Mayo as Brennan's dusty daughter is surprisingly okay, despite falling deeply in love with Douglas after a two-minute chat behind the joshua trees. Douglas gets to fix the self-inflicted wound on her trim calf. Lucky Kirk.

A "6" from me means not a good movie. It takes a better than average Western to interest me, and I thought this would be one. But, it wasn't. Instead it was full of clichés (from mirages in the desert, to waterholes that were alkali, to sandstorms...to you name it...well, at least there weren't any rattlesnakes).And the acting wasn't much to brag about, either. Kirk Douglas plays the US Marshall determined to take rustler (?), murderer (?) Walter Brennan to trail, rather than allow him to be lynched by the father of the man he may have killed. Pretty traditional story. Even more traditional is the silly sort-of-romance between Douglas and Brennan's daughter (Virginia Mayo).There is one thing that sets this film apart -- a true gem of a role for Walter Brennan...and because his role is key to the plot, he gets lots of screen time here. His acting here is as prominent...perhaps more so...as in "Rio Bravo".So, watch this film for Walter Brennan's acting. Otherwise, watch it once...but don't purchase it for your DVD shelf!