Phantom Rancher (1940)

Purely Joyful Movie!

Awesome Movie

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The lower end westerns are not known for cerebral plot and character development. This one scrapes the bottom with a hero hardly anybody recognizes because he's wearing a mask, a black hat, and a black cape. His voice (same flat drone--is he reading his lines?) never changes, his horse never changes, and the tack his horse wears never changes.Horse people NOTICE individual horses. I notice individual horses in these movies being used in ways that defy continuity. I also notice their bridles, especially the ornate ones. Surely in the setting of the movies such things would be noticed as well? While this is annoying on one level, on another it is so bad that it is entertaining. Obviously, this was produced for an audience that was none too picky, but even so, the target is set absurdly low. I liked the dismount/unsaddling maneuver, with Tarzan leaping into his own paddock.Ya gotta see it to believe it.

I love these old Westerns, but I have to call 'em as I see 'em. This one requires a major suspension of disbelief with the character of the Phantom Rancher, a pretty good gimmick except that he and Ken Mitchell (Ken Maynard) rode the same horse and no one could figure that out. Maybe that's why by the time Columbia Pictures put Charles Starrett to work as The Durango Kid, they had it all worked out that Durango would switch off between a white one and a black one.But whoa, wait a minute! Did they really use a trip wire to make old Tarzan go down the way he did in that crazy spill he took early in the picture? Like many cowboy movie stars of the era like Roy Rogers and Gene Autry, Maynard owned the horse he rode in his pictures, so I can't imagine he would allow that just to make an exciting scene. Maybe I'm wrong about the trip wire, but watch the scene closely and both horse and rider take a mean tumble. Later on Maynard (or a stunt rider) do another gimmick where he drops off Tarzan saddle and all making a getaway from the bad guys. That one wasn't as dangerous but still takes some kind of effort to pull off.Story wise, what you have is the hero making the scene as a result of his uncle's will that puts him in charge of the Mitchell ranch. Only thing is, the uncle was hated in these here parts because he held the mortgages on the other ranchers and began foreclosing on them. He was in cahoots with the film's main villain Collins (Ted Adams), but was murdered on orders from Collins because he wasn't playing ball the way he should have been. Nephew Ken's plan is to smoke out the bad guys using the Phantom Rancher gimmick, dropping money off with the neighbor victims so they can buy back their mortgages from Mitchell. Like the man said, that roll of money was getting just about worn out.You can say what you want about aging cowboy star Maynard, well past his heyday as a top flight draw for this flick. The real show was put on here by Tarzan, who somersaults, leaps fences, rolls in the mud and limps on command to fool the baddies. If he had a better agent, he'd be as well known as Trigger and Champion.

I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.

Ken Mitchell arrives to take over the ranch belonging to his recently deceased uncle, but when he arrives he finds himself hated by all the townspeople, since his uncle was trying to acquire all the ranches in the area, and then foreclosing all the mortgages that were being taken out. What Ken doesn't realize is that his uncle was working hand in hand with realtor Collins, who had a rancher, Markham, killed when he wouldn't sell his ranch to him, and now everyone in town (especially Markham's daughter Ann) believes Ken killed Markham. In order to right the wrongs his uncle did, Ken garbs himself as the Phantom Rancher, where he pays off all the ranchers who wouldn't accept Ken's charity as well as round up Collins and his gang. So-so western where nothing is really spectacular, but nothing boring. It could have used more action, but Maynard's persona helped carry it in dull spots. Rating, based on B-westerns, 5.