Ride Beyond Vengeance (1966)

It is a performances centric movie

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

What could have been an intriguing little Enoch Arden tale of coming back from the dead and how that effects the goings on of a small western town turns out to be an overdone gory tale of inhumanity and revenge. A great cast is assembled, but many of them are wasted, as the story is dished out to United States census taker James MacArthur by local bartender Arthur O'Connell, the purpose of which is never explained. It seems that years ago, Chuck Connors, a guy from the wrong side of the tracks fell in love with pretty Kathryn Hays, but her ailing aunt Ruth Warrick was opposed to them being married, and after walking out on her, Connors goes to make his fortune, returning nine years later to find out that he is not so welcome in his community. On his way back, he is attacked by gamblers Bill Bixby, Michael Rennie and Claude Akins, and branded for allegedly stealing coffee from them, his money stolen, and left to die in the countryside. Upon seeing Hays when he arrives in his hometown (late at night), Connors is rejected by her in the darkened streets for being just another drunken bum making a pass, and later finds out that she's engaged to marry the wealthy Rennie. When Connors, who was believed to be dead, reveals himself for real, the town is turned upside down as a cloud of violence hangs over everybody for the wrongdoing done to him, leading to some ugly confrontations and some disgusting situations concerning his vengeance.Certainly, practically every western town or city once started off just as a few buildings and businesses, and as they grew, became bustling metropolises or communities. The shot of Aunt Gussie's (Warrick) house decaying in the background is an interesting visual, but I wish there had been more character development for the various people involved in the story. The decision to brand Connors is disgusting and barbaric, and when one of the accused faced with being branded by Connors fearfully pulls the brand down on his own chest and runs off with it stuck in his guts, I had the urge to turn this off. It made no sense, as do many things in this vile film. Joan Blondell as a local "madam" and Gloria Grahame, as a local "easy girl", don't get much opportunity to do anything juicy, and poor Warrick (then one of the stars of "Peyton Place") has hardly any lines at all. The only thing I can say about her character is that the future Aunt Phoebe Tyler Wallingford of "All My Children" really reminded me of "Little House on the Prairie's" Harriet Olsen, a character I always compared to her wealthy matriarch anyway.Future soap diva Kathryn Hays ("As the World Turns") is quite lovely here, and she is one of the saving graces of this unfortunate western. Chuck Connors isn't really all that likable other than the few early romantic scenes he has with Hays, and as dashing as Rennie is, he's given a character that is completely vile beneath the silk suits he wears. Bixby, too, plays quite an unlikable character, but the champion of vile here is the madman played by Claude Akins whom I'm surprised wasn't killed off by either Bixby or Rennie earlier just as a favor to the community. In keeping with his disgusting character, he gets in a shoot-out with Rennie and runs off like a coward when Rennie shoots his horse. I did want to shout out some praise to the theme song, "You Can't Ever Go Home Again". sung by Glenn Yarborough, which gives a different indication of the type of film you're going to see over the opening credits than what actually transpires on screen.

While it's true that this is not a "typical western" in the sense that the good guy wins, kisses the girl and rides off into the sunset, I don't believe it's a remarkable movie.Firstly, the typecasting of actresses such as Joan Blondell and Gloria Graham is obvious - they appear to be rehashing the roles they played in Other Men's Women and Human Desire, respectively. Claude Akins is a psychotic alcoholic. He's lucid enough to know there is money involved in the scheme against Chuck Connors, but impaired enough to be controlled by the others in the gang for most of the movie.Bill Bixby's character is merely odd - a foppish, sadistic gigolo who develops some sort of conscience in the end. There is no rationale for his breakdown or his self-mutilation. Paul Fix does well as a double-crossing scoundrel who receives justice at the hands of Claude Akins. His actions are out of character, as he has not shown much in the way of initiative up to this point. He, as well as the others, have taken their marching orders from Michael Renne.The book and original story may have had more depth, but the movie version seems shallow and frankly, quite lazy, in its attempt to create a character-driven drama. It leans more toward Soap Opera (or Rope Opera, if you prefer) with heavy doses of gratuitous violence.

I see why some folk like it, the downbeat and harsher edges appealing, if only it wasn't so badly constructed and played! It is to my mind a classic example of the funk American Westerns had got themselves into at this juncture of genre film making.Michael Rennie and Bill Bixby are badly miscast, Claude Akins overacts to within an inch of his life (a rare poor show from him), while Bernard McEveety's direction shows why he was more at home in TV work. It all looks desperately fake, the interiors of key buildings looking like Wild West themed restaurants, the rest of the exteriors looking like what they are - stages! (most likely built from Chuck Connors' woodenness) Script is weak, which leads to a story that is never once authentic in tone or feeling, scenarios that are meant to be telling are unconvincing and the action is laughably staged.No hidden or misunderstood gem here, just bad film making that irritates as opposed to entertaining. 1/10

This may well be the best role Chuck Connors ever had outside of his regular TV series work. A griping tale of a man who leaves his wife to go off and make a fortune for her only to return 10 years later. A return that is met with rejection by the woman he left behind and a brutal beating and robbing that leaves the man branded as a thief. An action that sets him down a road of vengeance against the three men who robbed him and sets the entire town on edge. With excellent performances by Bill Bixby, Michael Rennie, Kathryn Hayes and Claude Adkins as a borderline psychotic who talks to his invisible friend "Whiskey Man." This one is definitely worth catching and of late has appeared many times on the Westerns Channel where it is shown uncut and without commercial interruption which helps to add even more to the movement of the story. A film filled with many great actors who are all sadly either gone or no longer practicing their craft today. All of whom give the viewer some of their best performances ever. As for during the 60s when this was made, it would have definitely had an audience in those drive-in theaters of yesterday. An excellent one all around.